LAROUCHE ON ELECTIONS
Obama in Breakdown Mode—
Policy Revolution Now!
by Nancy Spannaus
Nov. 10—In what one Washington insider characterized as a “political impeachment,” President Barack Obama suffered a stinging repudiation in the Nov. 4 mid-term elections, taking the Democratic Party down along with him. A sea-change in U.S. politics has occurred in which, implicitly, Obama is finished. The problem is that until he is actually out of power, and new policies of economic recovery and international cooperation are put in place, the world economy—and potentially the world’s existence—are on the verge of being finished as well.
Lyndon LaRouche was emphatic about the next steps required. First, Obama must be removed from power, but that is not sufficient: The United States needs a new combination of forces, and a new positive policy, to address the urgent crises facing the U.S. and humanity.
“What we have to do, is we now have to consider how we form a viable government, under these circumstances,” LaRouche said Nov. 7. “Endgame is coming on fast. The international financial system is imploding and disintegrating around us, and we have the job of putting this back together in a way that’s going to work, quickly.” “Timing is absolutely crucial,” he added. “The whole world will be affected by what the United States does in the coming days.”
It is the nature of the world crisis on every front—from the British-instigated global war policy, to the economic breakdown crisis to rampaging diseases like Ebola—that demands a revolutionary change in the policy of the U.S. government. That necessary change was, in fact, outlined in the June statement by Lyndon LaRouche on the Four Laws required for the survival of the United States, which must be taken up immediately (see below).
‘Political Impeachment’
The results of the Nov. 4 mid-term elections were not actually surprising. Riding a wave of hatred of and disgust with Obama, the Republicans gained control of the Senate, taking seven new seats. Two more, Louisiana and Alaska, are still undecided. This gives Republicans a 52 to 46 majority in the Senate, at present. The House of Representatives went further Republican, with at least 14 seats added to their majority.
Republicans also made gains in winning state governorships, taking even former Democratic strongholds such as Maryland and Illinois.
But the Republicans didn’t “win” this election; Obama lost it. Exit polls showed that 60% of the voters were angry or dissatisfied with Obama, and a similarly high percentage was furious at the Republican Congress. Seventy-eight percent said they were very or somewhat worried about the economy. Most telling was an exit poll reported by CBS, which said that “half of voters believe the economy will be worse for the next generation.”
Even Democrats who tried hard to distance themselves from the President, as in the Senate races in Kentucky and West Virginia, went down to defeat.
While many voters held their noses and voted for Republicans in order to “send a message” to Obama, even more stayed home. The voter participation rate was about 36%—i.e., 64% of the registered electorate stayed home in disgust.
Several groupings of Democrats, who had already been working against Obama’s policies, especially on surveillance and Executive overreach, responded to the loss by demanding that the White House carry out a purge of the “Gang of Five”—the Obama inner circle of Valerie Jarrett, Susan Rice, Tony Blinken, Ben Rhodes, and Denis McDonough. There is no indication, however, that Obama intends to carry out such a housecleaning, much less, face his own responsibility for leading the country, and his party, to destruction.
As for the option of impeachment, which LaRouche has demanded for years and is long overdue, the Republican leadership is currently determined not to remove Obama—but to use him as a foil for their 2016 presidential election campaign. It will take patriots—Democrats, along with sane Republicans—to move for the required impeachment.
Not Only Americans
Obama’s electoral loss has had immediate international reverberations, which are likely to further embolden those countries defying his policies of confrontation and economic piracy (as in the Administration’s support for the vulture funds against Argentina).
Two statements in the international press stand out. One came in Germany’s mass-circulation newspaper Bildzeitung, which reaches tens of millions of citizens. “Actually, it would be best if Obama were to pack his suitcases right now, leave the White House and move back to Chicago,” they wrote—although citing all the wrong reasons for doing so.
Then there was the Chinese press. A post-election editorial in the English-language Global Times says of the defeated President: “Obama always utters ‘Yes, we can,’ which led to the high expectations people had for him. But he has done an insipid job, offering nearly nothing to his supporters. U.S. society has grown tired of his banality.”
Ominously, however, Obama’s British sponsors still apparently stand behind him—as their tool to continue the policies leading the world to disaster.
Ominous Denial
In his press conference on the day after the election, as well as several other media appearances since, Obama has demonstrated his determination to ignore the election results, and press ahead with the policies of global confrontation and domestic dictatorship which his British imperial sponsors have laid out for him. No significant changes in White House staff have been announced. Rather, narcissist Obama insisted that the election loss really had nothing to do with any mistakes he made—other than not having clearly communicated to the American people what a great job he was doing.
Most outrageous was his claim that the U.S. economy is “outpacing most of the world,” and undergoing a true recovery—a lie based on phony statistics which the American voters had just shown that they don’t swallow.
Obama then announced his intention to double the number of troops he’s deploying to the war in Iraq, and that he will take Executive action on areas where he does not get what he wants from the Congress. At that Nov. 5 press conference, Obama claimed that he wants to finally get an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for his current unconstitutional war in Iraq, but it is likely that this is a lie. As House Speaker John Boehner has reiterated, the House would discuss an AUMF if one were sent by the White House to the Congress, but Obama has refused to request such authorization, insisting that he has the power to act on his own.
So far, those voices that had been demanding that Obama come to Congress on the Iraq-Syria war, as the Constitution demands, have been silent. This tolerance of Obama’s agenda could be fatal.
Unless his influence is immediately crippled by impeachment proceedings or other Constitutional means, even “lame duck” Obama has the power to destroy the United States. His course of action against Russia, by supporting the Nazi government of Ukraine, further expanding NATO to the East, and waging financial warfare by sanctions, has the potential to explode into a hot war at any point. His continued commitment to regime change in Syria, and de facto support for the terrorist groups that are waging it, also puts him on a confrontation course with Russia and China.
At the same time, Obama’s economic policies—ranging from opposition to the BRICS process, to green deindustrialization, to support for the rapacious, bankrupt banking system of Wall Street—are actually helping to bring on what all sentient financial experts expect to be a new financial crash, this time, bigger than that of 2008. California and several other Western states are aleady dying as a result of the failure of the Obama Administration—as the others before it—to deal competently with the drought. The U.S. food supply is under grave threat, even as the overall degradation of the energy platform and the labor force brings a higher and higher percentage of Americans into poverty, and increases the death rate in certain pockets of the population.
And Obama has already made clear that he is willing to use increasingly dictatorial measures—as against journalists, Constitutional requirements, and so forth—to enforce his irrational will.
LaRouche emphasized again on Nov. 9 that Obama’s influence must be quashed. As long as he and his agenda dominate the political process in the United States and the world, mankind is in mortal danger. Americans must move now, this week, today, to bring down Obama and his influence, and set in motion a process, with sane Democrats and Republicans, to restore the U.S. Constitutional process—and a foreign policy to match.
A Bipartisan Agenda, for Peace and Development
In a statement issued Nov. 7, LaRouche declared that while Obama must be removed from power, that is not enough. “A positive agenda for governing is now urgently required.”
“A multi-partisan agenda to stop the imminent threat of global wars” is now a top priority, he said. Some people in the leadership of the parties are aware of the need for an action agenda. It is now essential that the American people know that there is a clear change of direction—a change they demanded with resounding clarity on Nov. 4.
LaRouche specified some of the immediate urgent actions that can be taken in the wake of Obama’s ouster. “First, we need an international agreement with China; second, we need to drop our support for the fascists in Ukraine, who have brought us to the very brink of strategic confrontation with Russia; third, we must implement the plan devised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to defeat the Islamic State.”
He warned that “the kettle of general warfare is already set to boil over.” The only way to turn down the heat is to advance a real policy of global recovery—in line with what China and the other BRICS countries have already initiated.
LaRouche noted that such a bipartisan agenda will not instantly solve all of the problems that have built up over the last 14 years of the G.W. Bush and Obama administrations. “But decisions can be made that will clearly give the American people the confidence that things are going to get better, and that we have entered into a new era.”
LaRouche emphasized that necessity requires a bipartisan leadership and such a viable agenda. “We are heading for a crash, and some among our nation’s leaders know that they are on the hot seat and must act.”
“We have reached a Pearl Harbor moment,” LaRouche concluded. “Clear, raw necessity is driving the change, and people are going to be forced, out of that necessity, to adopt policies and do things that they never thought they would have to do. History demands it.”
